Things seem to be unfolding rather quickly. Former White House aides and advisors are scrambling to cover themselves as they receive subpoenas to appear and produce documents.
It’s rare when lawyers — as opposed to their clients — take the Fifth Amendment. But Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly tried to help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 presidential election, is now claiming the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He has just been joined in that posture by one of Trump’s main outside legal advisers, John Eastman.
The lawsuit comes after the committee signaled it would pursue a criminal contempt referral against Meadows because of his refusal to sit for a deposition in the investigation into the Capitol riot. Meadows alleges that the subpoenas are "overly broad and unduly burdensome," while claiming that the committee "lacks lawful authority to seek and to obtain" the information requested.
And apparently Mark Meadows had a power point outlining how to overturn election results.
The 38-page presentation, entitled "Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan," is dated one day before the Capitol riot. It's believed to have been submitted by Meadows after he was subpoenaed by the panel in connection with the insurrection.
Wyomingattemptedto pass a bill that protected the rights of zygotes:
A bill that would give zygote s the rights of humans pass e s Senate committee - Better Wyoming. This was publish ED in February of 2019. There are many religious people who believe that zygotes are persons. Why do they believ e that? One interesting explanation:
[...]
I'm not sure this is an accurate reflection. The bill you referenced, SF0128, cleared the Judiciary Committee 02/01/19 on a 3:2 vote. However, it was defeated in the Senate with an 11:18:1 vote three days later.
I'm curious, what did you hope to achieve by posting This?
46 minutes ago, subee said:
[...]
Why Are Religious People (Generally) Less Intelligent? | Psychology Today. I have no idea why my computer is not linking these articles but they can be Googled.
Let's talk about the testimony in the Select Committee Hearing today.
Trump and his sycophants were certainly pressuring state level Republicans to break the law in order to benefit him. Trump loyalists terrorized the poll workers that the Trump lie singled out for trouble. It's so unfortunate and unsurprising that the poll worker that Trump chose for persecution is a black woman.
What does the color of the woman's skin have to do with anything? Like harassing a non POC is some how not as bad as harassing a POC? This is sick.
Or is it another attempt to imply Trump is this huge racist? ......... Again....
When Trump is so racist you have to come up with some irrelevant obscure detail of the race the person is that he supposed harassed! Say it enough and someone will believe it? Sound a little propagandic indoctrination?
Do you have any of your super duper superior "facts" to back up he chose this woman because she was black?
Or is it another one of your radical left thoughts?
Onetime Trump passed another person in the hall and didn't say hi. I'm not suprised to the person was black. Get out with this silly nonsense.
Wyoming attempted to pass a bill that protected the rights of zygotes:
A bill that would give zygotes the rights of humans passes Senate committee - Better Wyoming. This was published in February of 2019. There are many religious people who believe that zygotes are persons. Why do they believe that? One interesting explanation:
The same reason liberals believe plants and animals and the environment should have the same rights as humans
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:
Let's talk about the testimony in the Select Committee Hearing today.
Trump and his sycophants were certainly pressuring state level Republicans to break the law in order to benefit him. Trump loyalists terrorized the poll workers that the Trump lie singled out for trouble. It's so unfortunate and unsurprising that the poll worker that Trump chose for persecution is a black woman.
Justice Alito's draft majority opinion finds that abortion is not actually protected by the 14th amendment, not "because it infringes on the rights of another human life" but because as an originalist, he argues that the Constitution only protects those things that were established precedents at the time, and this would include that Loving v Virginia which protects the right of interracial marriage is also not actually protected by the 14th amendment.
He does try to differentiate the two, but does not actually go so far as to say abortion infringes on the rights of another human life, instead deferring to Roe's description of a "potential life".
So while he provides some commentary on the moral dilemma of abortion, the actual precedent that would be set is that a number of rights found to be protected by the 14th amendment over the years are not actually protected.
Even though Alito skirted the issue and instead relied on a sort of absurd argument, I do think that is what abortion comes down to, when is a fetus a sacred 'life'. I personally don't agree with the idea that when an egg and sperm combine to form a zygote that spiritually speaking this life.
The argument seems to be that at this point, this is where the cells that will eventually make a human start to form, but an adult who's been declared brain did is biologically far more of a developed human, yet there doesn't seem to be much dispute that a brain dead person is not alive.
Except when you tell their family they will need to be removed from life support. ... the cells that will form a baby haven't been damaged beyond sustainability.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:
What does the color of the woman's skin have to do with anything? Like harassing a non POC is some how not as bad as harassing a POC? This is sick.
Or is it another attempt to imply Trump is this huge racist? ......... Again....
When Trump is so racist you have to come up with some irrelevant obscure detail of the race the person is that he supposed harassed! Say it enough and someone will believe it? Sound a little propagandic indoctrination?
Do you have any of your super duper superior "facts" to back up he chose this woman because she was black?
Or is it another one of your radical left thoughts?
Onetime Trump passed another person in the hall and didn't say hi. I'm not suprised to the person was black. Get out with this silly nonsense.
You would have to ask Trump why he spread dangerous lies about that woman and her mother. Out of all of the poll workers he could have lied about, he chose a couple of black women. Surely that's just a coincidence. Just like it's a coincidence that Trump's sycophants repeatedly implied that voting precincts with large numbers of black voters had to be challenged or considered fraud heavy.
Did I say that Trump lied about her because she was black or did I simply point out that he put her life and well being in danger by lying about her actions during the election? The facts are what they are. Trump focused the angst of his followers on that woman and her family with lies and conspiracy theory...
That was some of the testimony in today's hearing. You could listen to it while you did your evening activities.
You obviously didn’t watch today’s hearing and then you feel compelled to comment on it. Trump named Ms. Freeman 18 times during his infamous call to Raffensberger, calling her a hustler and a scammer. The recorded call was played today. There are also recordings of 911 calls from Ms Freeman begging the police to come because people are banging on her door at 10 o’clock at night. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-georgia/
You would have to ask Trump why he spread dangerous lies about that woman and her mother. Out of all of the poll workers he could have lied about, he chose a couple of black women. Surely that's just a coincidence. Just like it's a coincidence that Trump's sycophants repeatedly implied that voting precincts with large numbers of black voters had to be challenged or considered fraud heavy.
Did I say that Trump lied about her because she was black or did I simply point out that he put her life and well being in danger by lying about her actions during the election? The facts are what they are. Trump focused the angst of his followers on that woman and her family with lies and conspiracy theory...
That was some of the testimony in today's hearing. You could listen to it while you did your evening activities.
Doesn’t make it true
36 minutes ago, nursej22 said:
You obviously didn’t watch today’s hearing and then you feel compelled to comment on it. Trump named Ms. Freeman 18 times during his infamous call to Raffensberger, calling her a hustler and a scammer. The recorded call was played today. There are also recordings of 911 calls from Ms Freeman begging the police to come because people are banging on her door at 10 o’clock at night. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-georgia/
it could of been Jehovas witnesses for all we know knocking on her door.
You would have to ask Trump why he spread dangerous lies about that woman and her mother. Out of all of the poll workers he could have lied about, he chose a couple of black women. Surely that's just a coincidence. Just like it's a coincidence that Trump's sycophants repeatedly implied that voting precincts with large numbers of black voters had to be challenged or considered fraud heavy.
Did I say that Trump lied about her because she was black or did I simply point out that he put her life and well being in danger by lying about her actions during the election? The facts are what they are. Trump focused the angst of his followers on that woman and her family with lies and conspiracy theory...
That was some of the testimony in today's hearing. You could listen to it while you did your evening activities.
Ya gotta give him credit for his skill in weaponizing hatred. Fred Trump trained him well.
chare
4,372 Posts
I'm not sure this is an accurate reflection. The bill you referenced, SF0128, cleared the Judiciary Committee 02/01/19 on a 3:2 vote. However, it was defeated in the Senate with an 11:18:1 vote three days later.
I'm curious, what did you hope to achieve by posting This?
ETA: A bill that would give zygotes the rights of humans passes Senate committee